Agile Trading Technologies vs RiskSpan
Secondary & Capital Markets head-to-head · axis by axis, same rubric for both
Secondary & Capital Markets
Cooper and Company
| Axis | Agile Trading Technologies | RiskSpan |
|---|---|---|
| Production impact | 4.4 | 2.5 |
| Functionality & depth | 3.8 | 3.3 |
| Integrations & ecosystem | 4.1 | 2.1 |
| Adoption & support | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| Return on spend | 4.4 | 2.3 |
| Overall | 4.2 | 2.6 |
Agile Trading Technologies wins 5 of 5 axes. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.
What the rubric says
Agile Trading Technologies and RiskSpan are both scored in Secondary & Capital Markets. Agile Trading Technologies carries an overall of 4.2, RiskSpan an overall of 2.6. The widest gap between them is Adoption and support, at 2.3 of a point. That axis measures whether the team adopts it and gets unstuck. Agile Trading Technologies takes it, 4.4 to 2.1.
Where the five axes separate
On Adoption and support the record favours Agile Trading Technologies, 4.4 against 2.1. On Return on spend the record favours Agile Trading Technologies, 4.4 against 2.3. On Integrations and ecosystem the record favours Agile Trading Technologies, 4.1 against 2.1. On Production impact the record favours Agile Trading Technologies, 4.4 against 2.5. On Functionality and depth the record favours Agile Trading Technologies, 3.8 against 3.3.
Pricing posture
Agile Trading Technologies does not publish pricing. Its listed model is not published; broker-dealer execution platform, no license fee shown. RiskSpan does not publish pricing. Its listed model is quote only, per-user edge licence on 24 or 36 month contracts.
Deployment and who each one targets
Deployment for Agile Trading Technologies: Cloud, reached by browser or mobile app. Deployment for RiskSpan: Cloud, AWS-hosted, with API access. Segment focus for Agile Trading Technologies: Secondary desks at hedged originators, plus the broker-dealers quoting to them. Segment focus for RiskSpan: MSR owners, whole loan and RMBS investors, and dealer desks doing loan-level analytics. The two entries name different buyers.
What each record credits
Agile Trading Technologies: SEC-registered broker-dealer and FINRA and SIPC member, with no proprietary book or TBA lines. Agile Trading Technologies: MCTlive! Agile Trading Technologies: TBA request-for-quote and individual pool bidding share one screen with AOT automation. RiskSpan: Loan and pool level data through a documented API, from Excel, Python or R. RiskSpan: Claimed 70-plus asset classes with scenario libraries, stress tests, VaR and CECL calculation. RiskSpan: Accepts a client’s own prepayment model in place of the proprietary one.
What each record holds against them
Agile Trading Technologies: No parent, investor or funding history is disclosed anywhere on the site. Agile Trading Technologies: Claims compatibility with leading hedge advisory platforms but names none. Agile Trading Technologies: Homepage counters render as placeholder zeros, including broker-dealer count and monthly volume. RiskSpan: Investor and portfolio analytics, not a lock desk pricing or hedge platform. RiskSpan: No origination or servicing system named as an integration anywhere. RiskSpan: AWS listing shows contract terms and a placeholder price, routing buyers to email.
Which one fits which shop
Best fit for Agile Trading Technologies: A lender tired of calling four dealers for a TBA quote. Best fit for RiskSpan: MSR and whole loan investors whose valuation work still runs on spreadsheets.
What each entry concludes
Agile Trading Technologies: Agile is an electronic marketplace for TBA and MBS pool trading. Agile Trading Technologies: It replaces the phone calls a secondary desk makes to its dealers. RiskSpan: RiskSpan sells the Edge Platform, cloud analytics for people who own or trade mortgage assets, not originate them. RiskSpan: Coverage is the reason to buy.
The short answer
Agile Trading Technologies finishes ahead on the published rubric, 4.2 to 2.6. The margin comes mostly from Adoption and support. Same rubric, same weights, no sponsorships.
Both tools are scored on the same weighted rubric, production impact carries the most weight. Comparisons are never sponsored. Disclosure →